- I. Homes’ Variance Request: M.I. Homes requests a variance to allow some elevations with less than 50% brick on the front in the Auburn Ridge development. The applicant argues this would enhance streetscape diversity and is not intended to cheapen the product but to provide architectural variety and meet market demands.
- Community Concerns: Neighbors and community members have expressed concerns regarding the potential for lowered property values and the impact on the aesthetic integrity of the surrounding areas. There is a preference for maintaining higher masonry standards and concerns about the precedent this variance might set.
- Material Quality and Aesthetics: M.I. Homes proposes using fiber cement siding as an alternative to vinyl, where less than 50% brick is used. This condition is intended to ensure a high-quality finish and address concerns about vinyl siding’s aesthetic and durability.
- Commitments by M.I. Homes: M.I. Homes has offered to commit to not using vinyl siding in the development, intending to guarantee higher material standards. The applicant also suggests a willingness to ensure that a certain percentage of homes will exceed the 50% brick requirement, though specifics need to be clarified and formalized.
- Practical Difficulty and Variance Criteria: The discussion highlighted the challenges related to defining practical difficulties in this context. M.I. Homes contends that the strict application of the 50% brick requirement limits architectural diversity and does not necessarily equate to higher quality or value.
- Comparisons to Other Developments: References were made to other developments within Brownsburg that have different standards due to being approved under Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) or other zoning classifications, suggesting a competitive disadvantage or inconsistency in standards.
- Board Considerations: The Board must weigh the variance criteria, including whether the approval would be injurious to public welfare, affect the use and value of adjacent areas adversely, and whether the strict application of the ordinance results in practical difficulties.
- Recommendation for Conditions: If the Board considers approving the variance, it may wish to specify conditions to ensure clarity on the commitments made by M.I. Homes, such as the minimum percentage of homes to meet or exceed the 50% brick requirement and the prohibition of vinyl siding across the development.
- Next Steps and Decision: The Board needs to deliberate on whether the variance request meets the required criteria, taking into account the community input, the applicant’s proposals, and the long-term impact on the neighborhood and town’s development standards.
The decision on BZDV-24-1 will set an important precedent for future developments and requires a balanced approach that considers both the need for architectural diversity and the community’s expectations for quality and aesthetics.
The meeting focused on discussing the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) rules and procedures, particularly concerning public participation and time limits on public comments. Below is a detailed report on the key points and discussions that took place:
Overview of Discussion Points:
- Concerns Raised About Time Limits:
-
- Members expressed discomfort with the current time limitations for public comments, suggesting they might prevent comprehensive community engagement.
- The possibility of removing or adjusting the time constraints to ensure all participants are heard was discussed, emphasizing the board’s responsibility to listen to the community’s input.
- Comparison with Other Communities:
-
- It was noted that other communities have established time limits for public comments, with Brownsburg’s limits being more generous in comparison.
- The discussion highlighted the balance between efficient meeting management and allowing ample opportunity for public input.
- Practical Challenges of Enforcing Time Limits:
-
- The difficulty of enforcing time limits without appearing to curtail meaningful discussion was acknowledged.
- Members recounted experiences where it was hard to interrupt speakers without causing frustration or giving the impression of stifling dialogue.
- Impact on Meeting Duration and Management:
-
- Concerns were voiced about meetings extending late into the night without time restrictions, potentially impacting the board’s effectiveness and decision-making process.
- The importance of managing the meeting agenda to avoid overloading meetings with contentious items was discussed.
- Public Perception and Participation:
-
- The reduction in public participation was attributed to the perception that time limits might prevent individuals from being fully heard.
- The potential negative impact of time restrictions on encouraging public engagement and the sharing of diverse viewpoints was a concern.
- Legal and Procedural Considerations:
-
- The necessity of consistency between the BZA and the Plan Commission’s rules for public comments to avoid legal challenges was emphasized.
- The possibility of revising both sets of rules to align more closely, ensuring procedural fairness and reducing the risk of arbitrary decision-making, was discussed.
- Flexibility in Rules Application:
-
- The option to suspend rules regarding time limits on a case-by-case basis was presented as a means to accommodate extensive public interest or complex issues.
- Members shared instances where suspending the rules allowed for more thorough exploration of issues and community concerns.
- Written Comments and Alternative Forms of Participation:
-
- The value of written comments as a complement to oral comments was highlighted, allowing for detailed input that can be reviewed and referenced by the board.
- Encouraging the submission of written comments as a way to ensure all perspectives are considered, regardless of time limits during meetings, was suggested.
Recommendations and Next Steps:
- Review and Adjustment of Time Limits:
-
- The board considered revising the current time limitations to better accommodate public participation while maintaining meeting efficiency.
- A balanced approach that allows for flexibility in hearing extensive comments on particularly contentious or complex issues was favored.
- Consistency Across Boards:
-
- The need for consistency in public comment rules between the BZA and the Plan Commission was reaffirmed, with plans to review and possibly harmonize these rules.
- The legal counsel will provide a side-by-side comparison of the rules for both boards to aid in evaluating and making informed decisions on any changes.
- Enhanced Communication and Engagement:
-
- Members discussed ways to improve communication about the rules for public participation, ensuring the community understands the opportunities and limitations for engagement.
- Increasing awareness about the option to submit written comments and the process for potentially suspending time limit rules during meetings was highlighted as a priority.
Conclusion:
The discussion on the BZA rules and procedures underscored the board’s commitment to fostering meaningful public participation while ensuring meetings are conducted efficiently and effectively. The board plans to explore adjustments to the time limit rules and seek greater alignment with the Plan Commission’s procedures, always with an eye towards enhancing community engagement and ensuring all voices are heard.